On Wednesday 11 September 2019, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > Nearly 100% of my activity on wiki > is attempting to do this (documenting > tags and removal of what is in contrary to > reality).
Yes, and you are not the only one who tries that. But the bottom line is that this would only work in turning the wiki into an accurate documentation of the de facto meaning of tags if the number of edits and the time spent on these by those willing and able to diligently pursue this path outnumbered edits of those who pursue other goals by a fair margin. This is not achievable i think. And even if that worked it would still not produce the compact, well condensed kind of documentation Richard has in mind of course. > > wiki has version management and > talk pages. > > editorial review equivalent is done via watchlists No, with editorial review i mean advance review before edits make it to the version that is primarily used by consumers. The function of such review would be twofold: As quality control and to shift the incentive to participate in the whole thing towards the more qualified contributors. Wikipedia has been experimenting with a system of this kind imposed on top of the Mediawiki framework - but practically this is AFAIK used for technocratic oversight to avoid vandalism and other clearly malicious changes but not for editorial review regarding content quality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reviewing_pending_changes I have not actually tried the technical implementation of this but given how it is used i doubt it would be suitable for the kind of content centered editorial review we are talking about here. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
